SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

145(3) the assessment is required to be in the manner under Section 144 of the Act only. However, it is well known that in the case of Best Judgment where resort is taken to Section 144, the Assessing Officer exercising his jurisdiction cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously. The assessment must proceed on judicial considerations in the light of relevant

M/S KANAK VRINDAVAN RESORTS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 145 of the Act. Thus the disallowance so made by ld. AO and thereafter sustained by ld. CIT(A) is contrary to settled principles of law, and order so passed deserved to be quashed and subsequent disallowance so made deserves to be allowed. 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee

RAJESH KUMAR POONIA,JHUNJHUNU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 145(3) of the Act and rejecting books of Accounts without pointing out any specific discrepancy in the books of accounts:- The A.O. has during the Course of hearing has rejected the Books of Accounts by recording the following reasons :- Rajesh Kumar Poonia vs. ACIT ‘the books so produced during the examination were prepared after survey proceedings, hence

RAJESH KUMAR POONIA,JHUNJHUNU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 145(3) of the Act and rejecting books of Accounts without pointing out any specific discrepancy in the books of accounts:- The A.O. has during the Course of hearing has rejected the Books of Accounts by recording the following reasons :- Rajesh Kumar Poonia vs. ACIT ‘the books so produced during the examination were prepared after survey proceedings, hence

KIRAN INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: or at the time of hearing of

section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Against this order passed by ld.AO, assessee decided to file an appeal before CIT(A) wherein ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the rejection of the assessee’s books of accounts and invoking the provisions provided u/s 145(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act”). However

DEEP JYOTI COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

section 154 of the IT Act, 1961 the mistake was rectified and the income was determined at Rs. 3,90,93,520/- which resulted an addition of Rs. 1,25,51,290/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who after considering the materials available on record partly allowed

M/S. KAIZEN ORGANICS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing.

depreciation on Plant and Machinery of Rs. 8,04,524/-. The action of the ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified 2 M/s. Kaizen Organics Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the said disallowance of Rs. 8,04,524/-. 3. The appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

145(3) of the Act. 4. The assessee challenged the action of the A.O. before the ld. CIT(A) and also raised objection against the validity of reopening of the assessment. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the ground raised by the assessee against validity of reopening of the assessment. However, on merits, the ld. CIT(A) granted part relief

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

145(3) of the Act. 4. The assessee challenged the action of the A.O. before the ld. CIT(A) and also raised objection against the validity of reopening of the assessment. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the ground raised by the assessee against validity of reopening of the assessment. However, on merits, the ld. CIT(A) granted part relief

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

145(3) of the Act. 4. The assessee challenged the action of the A.O. before the ld. CIT(A) and also raised objection against the validity of reopening of the assessment. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the ground raised by the assessee against validity of reopening of the assessment. However, on merits, the ld. CIT(A) granted part relief

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, AJMER vs. SHRI BHAGCHAND JAIN, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 145 of the Act, ipso facto does not confer blind powers upon the A.O. to make additions and in our view, the A.O. is not had liberty to assess the income of the assessee at 32 ITA 1271/JP/2018 & CO 42/JP/2018_ ITO Vs Sh. Bhagchand Jain whatever figures he wants. The A.O. is bound to make an honest estimation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

145(3) of the Act,1961. 2. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of AO in confirming the disallowance of Rs.30,35,538/- being 10% of the amount of Rs. 3,03,53,582/- claimed as application of income. 3. First of all, we take up the appeal

M/S R.G. COLONIZERS PVT. LTD. ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 136/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 M/S R.G. Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Cuke D.C.I.T., 4, Tirupati Trade Centre, S.C. Vs. Circle-3, Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aaacr 8269 D Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 06/08/2021 For The A.Y. 2014-15, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Rejection Of Books Of Account By Applying The Provisions Of Sec. 145(3). 2. The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Action Of Ao In Applying N.P. Rate Of 8% On Total Receipts Of Rs. 18,63,73,549/-, Thereby Computing The Business Income At Rs. 78,42,549/- (18,63,73,549*8%-70,67,877 Depreciation) As Against Net Loss Of Rs. 68,43,810/- Computed By The Assessee)

section 145(3) and applied n.p. rate of 8% on the total turnover and thus, assessed the 8 ITA 136/JP/2021_ M/s R.G. Colonizers P Ltd. Vs DCIT business income after allowing the depreciation

HARBANS LAL SETHI,JAIPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Section 145(3) of the Act, hence, the same is dismissed being part of Ground No. 2 9.4 During the course of the hearing, the ld. AR filed detailed written submissions along with comparative charts which are as under: “1. Firstly, the application of S.145 is not disputed. 2. As regards the enhancement: it is submitted that since the facts

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. KAYAKALP HERBAL PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

depreciation on property situated at Motu Ka Bass 5. Disallowance of EPF 19,777 employees contribution by applying the provisions of section 36(1)(va)/2(24)(x) Total 1,93,03,300 Less Additional income -41,30,000 declared in return on account of profit on unaccounted sales Net Addition 1,51,73,300 2.5 Aggrieved from the assessment

MOHD. CONST. CO.,KOTA vs. ADDL. CIT, KOTA

Depreciation) on total contract receipt of Rs.17,35,96,602/- and made trading addition of Rs.16,32,681/-. The relevant findings of the AO are as under: “I have carefully considered the written submission and objections of the assessee in respect of invoking of provision of section 145(3

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

145(3) of the Act and also held that normally additions under section 143(3) should be limited to the estimation of gross profit rate or net profit rate only, based on the relevant past history of the assessee and there is no further scope for making separate additions on different related grounds. The 17 Shri Vikram Singh Shekhawat

PRADEEP KUMAR HIMMATRAMKA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ao & No Defect Whatsoever Was Pointed Out In The Same, Thus The Observation Of The Ao & Ld. Cit(A) That The Assessee Has Not Maintained Stock Records Deserves To Be Excluded & Ignored

Section 145(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Appellant prays the rejection of books of account may please be held bad in law. 2 Shri Pradeep Kumar Himmatramka vs. ITO, Ward- 2 , Jhunjhunu . 1.1 That the ld. CIT(A) has further erred in not appreciating the fact that assessee has maintained day today stock records which were produced before